June 3, 2011

ADDED: Gregory Craig, Edwards's lawyer said: "John Edwards has done wrong in his life — and he knows it better than anyone — but he did not break the law... The Justice Department has wasted millions of dollars and thousands of hours on a matter more appropriately a topic for the Federal Election Commission to consider, not a criminal court."

What? The FEC isn't enforcing law? When John Edwards was a Senator, did he not vote for laws that made campaign finance matters into crimes? Is Craig trying to say that some kinds of crimes aren't really crime crimes?

Waste of government money. The government should be spending its time fixing the economy, creating jobs, rebuilding the declining national infrastructure, blah blah blah. Going after a schmuck who failed to get elected is just entertainment for the masses, and we have too much of that.

Ann, no doubt Edwards is a hypocrite in general (and it would be ironic if he voted for the regulation that he ultimately gets indited for breaking). I do not care about Edwards. I care about the precident of this going forward. The entire Scooter Libby case was a travesty too. At least in Bill Clinton's case they followed the constitutional way of impeachment (although I thought that a bad idea too). I thought Clinton matter should have been dealt with in the civil courts.

The Edwards operation fell into the pit so carefully dug to snare the GOP bundlers. A Union can make a bundled contribution from dues. But a rich Conservative cannot dump money on his candidate to buy influence. Instead he must get 100 friends to write checks and wink at them about getting it back on the next inflated billing at 133% ratio to even out the income tax obligation that swap creates. AlGore extended that method to foreign immigrant cultures who are Democrat social climbers. In any event, Edwards is under the Curse of a Dying Elizabeth. The system will criminalize his conduct without a second thought.

Sending a picture of your pup tent to another adult is not criminal (except at home when you have to explain it to the missus). Sorry Bob. If Weiner files a false police report, that is criminal.

I agree if Edwards lied to the grand jury, that is criminal. He was under oath. That said, I am not buying that having a friend pay money (likely Edwards' money too) to some bimbo that John Edwards got pregnant is a crime. It is pathetic and wrong, but that is not "money laundering." It is trying to hide you got some bimbo knocked up.

John Edwards and Anthony Weiner are the face of the modern democratic party--good riddance. Are the decent democrats? of course there are--they just dont seem to be going up on the skyline to condemn bad behavior. Sad--really sad.

"Maybe, but how did Edwards vote on campaign finance when he was a Senator?"

If the topic were the hypocrisy of politicians, that might be a sensible question. But that topic is so uninteresting -- perhaps the follow-up would be the odd frequency with which the sun rises in the east? -- it would hardly be worth pursuing.

This indictment represents a classic problem with loosely worded federal statutes, ostensibly aimed in one direction but worded so broadly that they can be read to take in quite a bit more as well. Edwards arranged the payment of hush money to keep an embarrassing episode of marital infidelity secret. Doing that certainly had, in part, a political motive. But everything a politico does has, at least in part and often in dominant part, a political motive; and anything anyone else does to make a politico look good in the public eye does not become a contribution subject to federal regulation because it also involves the payment of money. That seems to be the theory of the Govt case, gussied up with general allegations (obviously true) that Edwards was involved in "coordinating" the whole thing.

That the very broad wording of the statute will bear the Govt's reading is not enough to justify the decision to indict. The SCOTUS had some harsh things to say about that approach in rejecting earlier efforts by DOJ to use the mail and wire fraud statutes to criminalize anything the Govt chose to characterize as a violation of the duty to render fair and honest services. (And then Congress amended the statutes to restore in part an aspect of the 'honest services' theory of mail/wire fraud.) Perhaps it takes over-reaching of this sort by DOJ to get politicos to pay attention, but that doesn't change the fact of the over-reaching any.

" ... sending a picture of your pup tent to another adult is not criminal."

I'm sorry, Fred, but Yes. It. Is. You may not like the law, but the majority does like that law and had their elected representatives enact that law.

What Anthony Weiner does is called "flashing." If you send an unsolicited photo of your erect penis to a young girl on the internet, it is no different than standing in a public park and opening your trench coat and showing someone your hard on.

Exhibitionism is illegal and it has been for hundreds of years. And it should be. Because it's wrong.

Anthony Weiner has a mental health disease - the sexual disorder known as exhibitionism.

And his behavior is illegal. Just as John Edwards' behavior was illegal. Not his political positions. His behavior.

He got "gifts" from an old woman, the argument seems to boil down to whether or not he can accept money from an old woman to pay off his young woman, or is that a violation of campaign regulations. My guess is he will walk. He is too pretty for prison.

Johnny was not thinking straight about the money he asked his friend Bunny to send to support a scheme to remedy his Reille Hunter bimbo eruption. To this day he sees that money as a "gift from a concerned friend of the family" rather than as a contribution to his campaign. I agree with Edwards, but then lawyers tend to stick together.

Fred4Pres, I hate most campaign finance laws, but we have them, and they are law (except to the extent to which they are unconstitutional, and the limits on direct contributions and the disclosure requirements have been upheld by the Supreme Court).

If the purpose of those laws is to disclose the contributors to whom a candidate may be indebted, then isn't disclosure mandated by law here? If Edwards were not a candidate for political office, those expenditures to Hunter would not likely have been made by those private individuals. They helped hide Hunter because they wanted to help Edwards become Vice President of the United States, or perhaps President. Thus, they were, in fact, political contributions to assist his campaign, and should have been disclosed as required by law.

Waste of government money. The government should be spending its time fixing the economy, creating jobs, rebuilding the declining national infrastructure, blah blah blah. Going after a schmuck who failed to get elected is just entertainment for the masses, and we have too much of that

You know how the government can do all of those things? Get the fuck out of the way. You look to government to do these things and you know they are ill equipped to handle any of it.

"During the campaign of 2004, I spoke often of the two Americas: the America of the privileged and the wealthy, and the America of those who lived from paycheck to paycheck and those who are going to be indicted and those who won't be." -- Johhny Edwards

Nor does it make me feel safer, Fred. But U.S. Attorneys pick on little people all the time, for much less stuff than this. The only way to stop it is to get the laws changed, but the only way that'll happen is if there are some high profile prosecutions of people with the resources to fight, and possibly the political influence to change the laws.

When they browbeat the relatively powerless, nobody raises a stink. It's only when they go after the powerful, like Edwards, that any light at all is shown on this sort of thing.

"But a world of overempowered U.S. attorneys roaming around and looking for violations of the law does not make me feel safer."

Wait ... what?

US Attorneys enforcing the laws we pass doesn't make you feel safe?

Is the purpose of the law to make us feel comfortable? Feel?

Sounds like a Democrat - all touchy feely.

Politicians who get caught breaking the law never like the laws and Ann's point is a good one: Edwards like the law pretty fucking good when he voted on it (i.e., when it helped him to prevent OTHERS from running AGAINST him.)

He liked it pretty good then.

I'm unmoved by the logic of enforcing the laws that make us feel good and not enforcing the laws that don't make us feel good.

You should work to repeal the laws that don't make you feel good, Fred and support the enforcement of the laws on the books.

Another demopublican pseudo-scandal--in this case led by J-Edgar Holder and the Obama Admin DoJ. Obviously the Alt-tards have no problem siding with Holder when they might stick it to a southern Dem.

Regardless of what one thinks of Edwards, the charges are BS. Candidates have no obligation to spend campaign funds on what the govt. or public thinks they should spend them on. So Johnny takes a million and flies to a german FKK club for a week of R & R (bargain priced). He didn't say he wouldn't-. "Ethical lapses" are not crimes.

I hate John Edwards with the heat of a thousand suns, but this prosecution is a waste of time and money, and another example of prosecutorial overreach.

We are, each of us, prosecutable for our violations of any number of federal and state laws that criss-cross the sky to the point it is blackened, and being a lawbreaker is unavoidable.

This is what faced the Soviet serfs each day: never knowing when they would come for you because you were always in violation of something.

It's a strategy to reduce trust and prevent organized dissent. People turn you in first to avoid being turned in. It's destructive as hell to politics and work and families. Russia hasn't yet recovered from its poison even yet.

We're foolish for creating the same thing here, where we are are all criminals. Boston civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate wrote a book about it: "Three Felonies a Day," the number of crimes the average American now unwittingly commits because of vague and numerous laws.

Certainly, this would affect how people should view him, although most thinking people probably believe that he is a hypocrite anyway. However, even if he had voted against the law, I would still think that the law is dumb.

I would not think whether a particular senator voted for or against making a particular act a crime should determine whether he should be charged with the crime. Would his voting against a decent law exonerate him?

By federal law, we are all prohibited from contributing more than $2,500 to political candidates. Edwards claims, oh, but a friend can give me an ulimited amount as a personal "gift," and then I can use that money to advance my candidacy.

I think we should get rid of campaign contributions, but if we're not going to do that, Edwards should be prosecuted.

If his defense prevails, the limits won't mean anything anyway because contributions will just be called gifts. If his defense fails, he will get what he deserves for trying to skirt the law.

You don't know f*ck about Edwards' politics, or for that matter, the law --the presumption of innocence for one. He'll probably walk anyway, and at most merely a misappropriation of funds or something.

Better, lets start the war crimes trial on Bush and Cheney, et al (and Obama for that matter)

Another demopublican pseudo-scandal--in this case led by J-Edgar Holder and the Obama Admin DoJ. Obviously the Alt-tards have no problem siding with Holder when they might stick it to a southern Dem.

Regardless of what one thinks of Edwards, the charges are BS. Candidates have no obligation to spend campaign funds on what the govt. or public thinks they should spend them on. So Johnny takes a million and flies to a german FKK club for a week of R & R (bargain priced). He didn't say he wouldn't-. "Ethical lapses" are not crimes.

The way J describes it, the Breck Girl committed a kind of fraud, "takes a million given to him to run for POTUS and flies to a german FKK club for a week of R & R".

It's good J never got out of Mom's basement. You wouldn't want him for your lawyer.

Especially if you are guilty or have some degree of culpability in the matter under scrutiny (or even just arguably so). But if you're innocent as the wind-driven snow and can prove it, it may be okay to talk to some limited extent. Beats being indicted for something you demonstrably didn't do.

NevadaBob...You are an unforgiving man. Politics has always been a money game...let them play. You probably cheer when the NBA refs call a ticky foul every time a Miami heat star runs into a Dallas Maverick who gets into his way. Let them play.

But if you are innocent, with a lead pipe cinch defense? Absolutely not necessarily true. I have personally helped many clients avoid being indicted by setting the police straight on the actual facts during the investigation. In fact, it ought to be unethical and legal malpractice if you don't, in my opinion.

G Joubert... the crucial point being that YOU were with the client, helping set the police straight. It's really stupid to talk with the cops, or especially the FBI, without serious consultations with an attorney. The way the FBI has behaved of late, I wouldn't speak to them without an attorney even if approached purely as a witness to an obvious crime. And I say that as a former prosecutor who law-clerked for a U.S. Attorney's office.

"I thought the Libby prosecution was BS and this indictment is at least as bad if not worse.

Now you're getting it. Democrats indicted Libby. Wait ... I thought it was all a money game? "Let them play," they said.

So, now all corrupt Democrats are going to go to jail to get fucked up their asses by large angry men with huge colon-busting penises they'd gladly Tweet you if they Anthony Weiner-level internet connectivity.

I think that t-man has it right. There are limits to campaign contributions. Switching it to a "personal expense" is just one way to get around those limitations.

The Mellons, and, indeed, a lot of other big donors, esp., IMHO, to major Democrats, don't like those limits, and do what they can to get around them.

Bunny Mellon wouldn't have volunteered to pay Edwards' bills if he weren't a prominent (Democratic in her case) politician. Rather, she would have, realistically, expected him to pay for his own hair cuts and love children. He was a multi-millionaire from his channeling of dead babies, and could clearly afford such.

No, Mellon offered the money because he was the politician he was running for President.

So, where do you draw the line, if not here? Calling a political contribution a personal expense is merely a subterfuge to allow very rich contributors to bypass the contribution limitations that the rest of us have to honor.

And, so, we can hope to see what this guy really looks like without hormone treatments and face lifts, when he goes behind bars.

Campaign finance law is stupid and hopelessly unconstitutional, the Rule of Five notwithstanding. However, the law is the law and the Rule of Law is perhaps the most important thing of all. Edwards obviously broke this bad, unconstitutional law.

He's going to jail. Which is sad because he'll never be able to implement his plan to eliminate poverty from a jail cell. Of course, he couldn't implement it from his 30,000 square foot house, either.

I'm just hoping his bastard child eventually eliminates poverty when she grows up and becomes a light worker.

Regardless of what one thinks of Edwards, the charges are BS. Candidates have no obligation to spend campaign funds on what the govt. or public thinks they should spend them on. So Johnny takes a million and flies to a german FKK club for a week of R & R (bargain priced). He didn't say he wouldn't-. "Ethical lapses" are not crimes.

But what is illegal is to get that million dollars, or, indeed, more than, say $2,300, from any one individual. And, it becomes a crime when solicited, etc.

I would suggest that the difference here between illegal and criminal can be seen with Obama's campaign turning off credit card verification. They likely (we will never know for sure) got millions in illegal contributions. But they likely didn't know if any one contribution was illegal, and they very likely didn't conspire with those making those illegal contributions (either because they exceeded legal limits or came from foreign sources) to make them. So, there is likely no criminal culpability there.

Edwards and his people, on the other hand, appear to have actively conspired to evade the campaign finance limitations.

The immorality of Edwards' behavior is blatant. However, the criminality of such behavior requires an educated understanding of the law. The DOJ may very well be right, but when we base convictions on the confused motivations of an extremely old woman, there is cause for concern.....The Edwards' story is a sad narrative of endless layers of deceit, manipulation, and gullibility. Everybody involved with John Edwards had ended up looking not just foolish, but deceitful: The wife, the mistress, the fall guy, the press. and now, quite possibly, the DOJ. It's truly amazing how Edwards seems to bring out the absolute worst in everyone.

Anthony Weiner LOVES John Edwards right now. A good gauge of how many legs the Weiner story has left will be shown after the cycle drops Edwards and starts looking for it's next meal. Will it come back for Weiner seconds?

" ... when we base convictions on the confused motivations of an extremely old woman, there is cause for concern."

They didn't indict Bunny The Confused.

They indicted Edwards The Learned.

Quit trying to blame the innocent, confused donor. That's a red herring. Edwards knew it was wrong to cash her checks or else he would have just given Rielle The Freak the money out of his own bank accounts.

Edwards The Cheap was himself rich and didn't need Bunny Mellon's $900,000.

Quit blaming her. She didn't lie on his FEC forms. He did.

She just wrote checks so she'd have him captive if he won and could blackmail him.

Dude, get over yourself. I don't think Palin will win the general election. That's why I don't want her as the nominee. I also think many of her supporters have simply irrational expectations about what a Palin presidency would be like, but that's another story.

Let's use logic here. Not a strength of yours, I know, but bear with me. If I was an Obama liberal retard, and if I think Palin cannot win the general election, why would I be arguing that people should not support Palin?

That only makes sense in a sad Manichean scheme of good and evil such as yours. Which is to say, it doesn't make any sense.

I didn't see an answer to this earlier, Bob, so I'll ask again. How many offers are you currently entertaining for the proof that Weiner wasn't hacked and sent that tweet his crotchpic himself from his own house?

Comrade X -- Maybe people in the media think Palin can win. Or maybe there's another rationale for the negative coverage. I don't know. And as I've said many times, I like Palin and I could be wrong about her. But I am sticking with my argument.

Palin drives the MSM nuts. That's great and entertaining. The largest reason they hate Palin is because she's a sharp, attractive, socially conservative woman. They also hate sharp, attractive, conservative blacks.

They are social liberals. They demand orthodoxy.

The battle between Palin and the MSM has nothing to do with her electability as President. She's not electable because she has high negatives and can't persuade independents. That's the way it is.

McCullough -- Thank you. I have never denigrated Palin. She is electrifying and a conservative tour de force. I have simply laid out the reasons why I think any bid of hers for the presidency will be unsuccessful.

And for that this crank decries me as some kind of moby. It's really very hilarious. I mean, the amount of ink I have spewed into the Internet void defending President Bush is hard to fathom. But no matter. I'm not toeing the line -- the Line According to Bob.

She's clearly the candidate the left fears the most. And Obama doesn't have to lose much of his overwhelming 52% to lose the election. In the end, I don't think it matters who it is. Hope/Change Obama barely won against a terrible candidate. Proven Failure Obama is going to have a harder time

Bunny was not confused and, if the allegations in the indictment are true, she should go to jail too.

In 2007, after the "Breck Girl" haircut fiasco, Bunny wrote to Edwards's assistant, Andrew Young, and told him that bills for "things necessary and important for his campaign" to her directly so that she could help Edwards "without government restriction."

They knew she wanted to support Edwards, and asked her to fund the cover up of Hunter.

Bunny made the checks out to a friend of hers, and falsely wrote on the checks that the payments were for furniture. The friend then forwarded the checks to Andrew Young. Young's wife cashed the checks using her maiden name and then Young provided it to Hunter.

Criminalizing politics is a very bad idea. What a steaming pile. This is in no way "criminalizing politics". It's a criminal act committed by a politician. It's equally as dumb as the Prof's response of "Maybe, but how did Edwards vote on campaign finance when he was a Senator?" That also has no bearing on whether it's criminalizing politics, just the irony of his actions.

"You may remember John Kerry's own memory of Edwards, as recounted, I believe, in Bob Shrum's book.

"Apparently Edwards was lobbying VP, and told Kerry a story about his son's death, and gave a teary account of it, and told him that he'd learned so much from it and was ready to be VP, or that kind of thing.

"And he concluded: And I have never. Told. Anyone. That story before.

"Kerry got a chill when he heard this, but not for the reason you'd think. He'd got the chill because he remembered Edwards telling him this same story, with the same dead son and the same "And I have never -- told -- anyone" conclusion, to convince him on some other virtue of Edwards', years earlier. And he got a sense of the man he was thinking about putting on the ticket.

Does any attorney type Know that Bunny Mellon wrote John Edwards a direct check? I would think the she paid money to the associates who were handling this erupting bimbo, and that Bunny claims she did an act of kindness to a dying friend who should be allowed to die in peace. It would have worked, but for the National Enquirer guy's skill.

I hate John Edwards. When I was a young, naive, first-year law student in 2000, I sent 5$ to his primary campaign. I can't undo that - I'll be embarrassed about it for the rest of my life. So when I say I hate him, I HATE him with the zeal of the converted.

BUT.

I have a big problem with the government bringing up a man on charges of failing to report campaign donations for money that 1) donors didn't think was a campaign donation, 2) Edwards didn't think was a campaign donation, 3) was spent on hotel rooms and living expenses (not ads and signs). The theory is "we think this could be construed as a donation and therefore we've construed you into a felon." How can that possibly be just?

Not that it isn't fair. Johnny's chickens have come to roost. But he's an idiot douchebag who deserves to live out the rest of his life knowing how desperately he's harmed his children, wronged his dead wife, and made a hash out of his indistinguished congressional career. So I don't really care about John.

If I might be so bold...I would like to say to someone I consider an Internet Friend....the estimable Seven Machos....the problem is you are a lawyer...and you see that lawyers always think they are smarter than you...that they have it all sussed out...and they want to tell you how it is... like the Chinese prosecuting attorney I had on jury duty who grinned through the whole Voir dire like he was a sniper in a WW2 movie but couldn't remember my name....and you know we the men and women of the jury....you see we want to decide it for ourselves.

This whole Edwards thing echoes the Palin witch-hunt in here too. Remember during the campaign when they were going after her for spending money on clothes and shoes?

Women politicians have different needs. Ann has written about this before. Women politicians are more scrutinized for appearance. So now the standard is that "anything that makes you look good is a campaign expense"? So I guess, hair, makeup, clothes, low-fat meals---all that is a reportable. It will leave you a target for media enemies looking to paint you as frivolous.

T-man...Thanks for the info. I suspect that the ancient super rich Bunny Mellon never believed in all of those Campaign Finance Restrictions that didn't get imposed until she was in her 70s. What you described was a 3 layer cover up done to avoid getting caught. That conduct alone should get Edwards convicted. he should never have treated his insider aid who said that he was the horn dog that knocked up Rielle so badly. Didn't that dude also end up with a copy of the Sex Tape?

d-day wrote: The theory is "we think this could be construed as a donation and therefore we've construed you into a felon." How can that possibly be just?

I believe you've incorrectly summarized the DOJ's case. Political campaign spend money on a lot of things, from airtime on major networks to pizza and Coke for the volunteers manning the phones. If money is spent to advance the political fortunes of a candidate and said money is not from the candidates own coffers then it's a political donation subject to FEC regulations. Hiding Rielle Hunter in a variety of expensive hotels, buying her clothes and meals, using campaign staff to shuttle her around and keep her away from the National Enquirer was done (arguably) to advance the fortunes of the Kerry/Edwards presidential ticket. Therefore the 925 KiloBucks paid by Mellon to Edwards to finance the efforts of the campaign to hide Rielle Hunter and her baby from the press were donations and therefore subject to FEC regulations, violations of same defined as felonies.

One can argue that this ought not to be illegal, as many here have done. But the issue is standing standing law. If Mellon had written a check to Rielle Hunter and said "Here's a cool million. It's yours if you agree to take a long overseas vacation and don't try to contact Johnny Edward's very again." It would probably pass legal muster -- not ethical, but legal. But passing the money through Johnny Edwards hands, or the hands of his campaign staff is all the difference.

I get what you're saying and Edwards, by running it through the campaign, seems to gleefully dance on the line, but I'm still concerned because of this:

"(arguably)"

How can someone face substantial jail time for that something with so much discretion on how the law is to be interpreted? What is the guideline?

The way modern campaigns run---image consultants, etc.---presidential candidates are micromanaged to the Nth degree. If the argument DOJ makes is adopted across the board, would that mean that more calculated candidates are open to a more stringent reporting requirement than those more on the Fred Thompson end of the scale?

Where does it go from here? If the law is what DOJ tells us it is, how can anyone possibly comply in the future, let alone how Edwards was supposed to know before the fact.